Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is a podcast from WR Now the WR Saturday
Morning Show. Here's Larry Minty.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Welcome to Saturday Morning. On today's show, the Supreme Court,
here's arguments that could affect the entire Trump agenda. John Decker,
White House correspondent and Constitutional attorney, was at the Supreme
Court for the oral arguments. WR and newsma's host Rob
Astorino is back from the Vatican covering the elevation of
(00:30):
a new pope, and he talks about that experience. You
want to keep your brain healthy. It starts at the
dinner table. Doctor Gregory Poland is here to explain Pete
Rose is finally eligible for the Hall of Fame, and
legendary baseball columnist Bill Madden, who knew Charlie Hussel, is
here to talk about his chances. But let's start with
(00:51):
John Decker, who was in the Supreme Court to hear
arguments about the power of district court judges and birthright citizenship.
How do your takeaways?
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Yeah, that's right. I was in the Supreme Court for
all two plus hours of oral arguments yesterday, and the
Supreme Court really appeared to be divided on these two issues.
On the one hand, I think that you heard from
some justices that they're troubled, they're frustrated by the idea
that a single federal district court judge can issue a
(01:22):
nationwide injunction that would apply to everybody in the country,
not just the parties that brought the case in the
first place. And then, of course you saw this play
out before the Supreme Court yesterday. Not one of them
defended the President's executive order trying to do away with
(01:42):
birthright citizenship. In fact, Justice Alito essentially said, let's get
past this particular issue. Let's leave that aside, because I
think even he's uncomfortable with trying to defend an executive
order trying to trump what's enshrined in the fourteenth Amendment
of the country Institution.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
So what do you see happening? I mean, I know
it's reading tea leaves at this point, But when you
say they're split, is it split conservative liberal or is
it really split five to four or four to five?
Speaker 3 (02:14):
You know, the split is interesting because over the past
decade or so, you've I've heard a Republican appointed justices,
Democratic appointed justices, liberals conservatives both express frustration as it
relates to a single federal district court judge, a trial
court judge in a particular district issuing these nationwide injunctions. So,
(02:39):
you know, I think that for Chief Justice John Roberts,
he's got a difficult task ahead of him, and that
is essentially coming down with some sort of answer to
that particular problem that both liberal and conservative justices acknowledge
exists at the same time, leaving the crux of the
(03:02):
main issue at hand untouched, and that is the issue
of birthright citizenship. So he's got to navigate that. He's
got some time to do it. Yesterday marked essentially mid May.
He's gotten until the end of next month to come
out with an opinion the Supreme Court does concerning this
particular case. But to me, it's not, you know, black
(03:25):
and white this particular issue in terms of how you
do it, and that's where these bright minds on the
Supreme Court will need to figure that out. I expect
that as it relates to this case, Larry, there will
be a number of concurring opinions, because not every justice
will agree with the majority opinion that actually ultimately comes forward.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
It's interesting that, you know, some of the so called
liberal judges like Alena Kagan has been out publicly saying
that this is unsustainable. We can't have these district court
judges stopping executive power or across the entire country, or
even congressional power across the entire country. That that shouldn't
be happening. And so were there enough of the liberal
(04:10):
judges that were arguing and it seemed to be for
the idea of limiting limiting the power of a district
court judge.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Yeah, And you know, there was an idea that was
proposed by the Solicitor General. So he is the person
arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration. His
name is John Sower, and he suggested, you know, look,
the way to address this particular issue is through class
action status for some of the matters that come before
(04:42):
these district court judges. So the question was asked, Larry,
what happens? And this question was posed to both the
Solicitor General for the United States that's the person arguing
on behalf of the Trump administration, and the Solicitor General
for the state of New Jersey. And the question was
what happened if you win this case and what happens
(05:02):
if you lose this case? If the Solicitor General for
the state of New Jersey loses this case, I would
imagine not only the Solicitor General for New Jersey, but
also those that brought the cases in two other jurisdictions
would see class action status for the actions that they've
initially brought against the federal government concerning birthright citizenship. That
(05:25):
may satisfy all of the concerns expressed by the various
justices yesterday during oral arguments, But I think it's one
of those things where I'm really interested to see what
this ultimate majority opinion looks like.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
It's fascinating. There's so many cases involving Donald Trump's actions
going to the Supreme Court, but this one. And it's
smart that they went early with this one because this
one might be the foundation for ruling on many more
to come, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
You're absolutely right about that, because it's not just this
particular matter. It's other matters, other policy pronouncements, executive orders
taken by President Trump that have been challenged in the
federal courts, and we've seen a significant number of district
court judges weighing in and putting them on hold through injunctions.
(06:21):
And that is the power that exists right now. It
was interesting also to me to hear what Justice Clarence
Thomas said, and he pointed out that these nationwide injunctions
really did not start until the early nineteen sixties, and
he made a remark saying the country survived before that
period of time. So you know where he stands on
(06:41):
this particular issue.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I want you to put your other hat on for
one second, because Donald Trump is coming back after what
everybody seems to believe is extremely successful. I believe it
a extremely successful trip to the Middle East where he
may have changed the Middle East with some relationships with Syria, Lebanon,
possibly Iran, and got investments. Democrats are even praising it.
(07:04):
Him coming back, he's going to have a pretty big head,
which he already had in the first place. But do
you see it as an successful trip well?
Speaker 3 (07:12):
On the foreign policy front, absolutely. You know, the President
lifted sanctions on Syria that was unexpected, met with Syria's
new president that was unexpected, made a new offer as
far as an Iran nuclear deal and that's now being
studied by the government of Iran, that too is unexpected.
I think the one thing that did not happen on
(07:33):
this trip and it would not have happened. I don't
think anyway was the President calling an audible traveling to Turkey,
meeting with Zelensky and possibly Putin, But as we know,
Putin declined to travel to Turkey for peace talks. So
that's the one thing that I think really frustrates the president.
For as much success that he achieved on this trip,
(07:56):
including the economic investments in the United States, that was
one element that eluded him. But that was I think
a real reach to think that the President would travel
to Turkey, or that even Putin would travel to Turkey,
and of course we know he is not. And I
think that that's indicative, Larry, of the fact that we've
(08:18):
spoken about this before. Vladimir Putin is the impediment to
peace in terms of ending that war.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
WR White House and Washington correspondent and Constitutional attorney John Decker.
Next on Saturday Morning, Pete Rose is eligible for the
Hall of Fame, and someone who covered Pete for his
entire career, Daily News columnist Bill Madden, is here to
talk about it.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Back now to the WR Saturday Morning Show with Larry
MINTI welcome back.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Pete Rose died last year at the age of eighty
three and until the end he was asking the commissioner
to lift the lifetime ban on him so he could
be eligible to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
That happened this week for Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson,
and fifteen other deceased players. Legendary sports columnist Bill Madden
(09:11):
knew and liked Pete Rose. He is a best selling
author and the twenty ten recipient of Baseball Hall of
Fame's JG. Taylor Spink Award. He's got a new book out,
Yankees Typewriters, Scandals and Cooperstown, a baseball memoir, just out
last month. How appropriate for today, Bill, I'd love to
(09:34):
have you back to talk about the book. I'd love
to read the book, so it sounds great, But today
let's just talk about Pete Rose, if that's okay. And
what was your reaction when you heard, Bill?
Speaker 4 (09:47):
I wasn't surprised, because once Manford revealed that he'd have
this meeting with Pete Rose's relatives and he was once
again considering this whole I assumed that probably he would
rule and uh to reinstate him, basically for the reasons
(10:08):
that he gave you know, the guy is dead, and
a lifetime ban is a lifetime ban, and if you're dead,
you're no longer have a lifetime So I got that
was his reasoning me personally, I don't know how I've
been up back and forth on Pete Rose for thirty years.
I always liked the guy. He was a writer's delight.
(10:29):
He'd loved it. You know, you could go to his
locker and talk baseball, you know, before games and after games,
and he would go on and on, and he loved
the writers. I think I think it's important to understand
that when Bark to Yamati the commissioner first ruled that
he was going to go on the permanent ineligible list,
Giamatti never said anything about the Hall of Fame.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
He left that open.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
All he said was that Pete you need to reconfigure
your life, and if you do, then you know this
is up for appeal. Basically, what happened was in nineteen
ninety two, when nineteen ninety one, when Rose had been
out of the game for five years, he was now
(11:14):
eligible for the Hall of Fame, And it was the
Hall of Fame that decided that anybody on the Permanent
Ineligible list was ineligible for the Hall of Fame, effectively
taking the matter of Rose away from the Baseball Writers Association.
We were not happy about that because it was clearly
the Hall of Fame's opinion or the Board of Director's
(11:37):
opinion that they were worried we would vote him in,
and we never got a chance to decide one way
or the other way. It's been all these years.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
On that point. Is it your feeling that the Baseball
Writers would have voted him in on the first ballot.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
I don't think he would have got in on the
first ballot. I think he would have eventually gotten in
if he was eligible, because we having this debate every year,
and usually when these things happen and you debate about
someone every year, eventually the people who want him in
went over the people that don't want him in. So
I think, yeah, we would have voted him in. But
(12:14):
the problem with Pete was he always did something that
made you stop and think.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
You know.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
My feeling about Pete Rose and about the whole thing
with gambling was no question he broke Baseball's cardinal rule
and he deserved to pay a price for that. But
the difference between Pete Rose and the steroids guys was
night and day. In my opinion, the steroids guys cheated
the game, and what they did was, in my opinion, unforgivable.
(12:43):
In Pete's case, he may have broken baseball's cardinal rule,
but he never cheated the game. He always played all out,
and for me, that's why I probably would have voted
for him.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
It's interesting you say that about the steroid guys because
when I was listening to this last interview with Pete R,
he was talking about them, and he said, look, Barry
Bonds hit seven hundred and fifteen home runs before before
he was taking steroids, and he deserves to be in
for just that reason alone. But you don't think the
steroid people will ever get in.
Speaker 4 (13:15):
Well, it doesn't look like they're going to get in.
And I never bought that argument, because that was like
saying Shule's Joe was a Hall of Fame player until
he got involved in the nineteen nineteen World Series.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Right, It's true.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
It's the same thing. I mean, you know, just because
Barry Bonds was a great player once he started doing steroids,
I mean that's a deal breaker. I don't care how
great a player he was before there's no question he
would never have hit that many home runs if he
hadn't done steroids.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
So it's interesting, and we only have about a minute left.
But it's interesting that you say he won't get in
on the first ballot. So when he comes up in
twenty twenty seven, does some of the voters feel like
because obviously he's the all time hit leader just on
talent alone, he should be in on the first ballot,
but they have to make a statement that he did
do something wrong and then vote for him later to
(14:06):
get in.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
No, I didn't mean this. I meant for the baseball writers.
If we had been given a chance to vote on him,
I don't think he would have made it in on
the first ballot.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
With us, I got it.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
In this case, I think he'll probably get in and
I think Shuless Joe will probably get in it as well.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Wow, they both deserve thought. I thought they'd want to
send a message though.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
No, Well, I don't know. It's a strange committee. It's formed,
it's got former players, a lot of them played against
even with Pete are on that committee. There's owners on
that committee, there's writers on that committee. It's a I
think it's eighteen people on the committee.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Bill, it's fascinating that you that that everything you've said
to is fascinating. We'd love to have you back to
talk about your new book, Yankees Typewriters, Scandals and Cooperstown,
a Baseball Memoir, just out last month. Can't wait to
have you back. Bill. Thank you, Okay, thank you. Bill Madden,
national baseball columnists for the New York Daily News and
author of the new book Yankees Typewriters, Scandals and Cooperstown,
(15:09):
a Baseball Memoir coming up. Eating better can keep your
brain healthy and prevent things like Parkinson's disease. That's according
to doctor Gregory Poland from the Mayo Clinic. He's coming
up next on Saturday Morning WR and Newsmax's host and
former Westchester County executive Rob Astorino is just back from
(15:31):
the Vatican. We'll talk about the moment that made him
shed a tear.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Here's Larry Minting with more of the wr Saturday Morning Show.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Wr and Newsmax's host. Rob Astorino was at the Vatican
for the death of Pope Francis and the elevation of
Pope Leo the fourteenth, and he was moved by one
particular moment. Good morning, Rob, busy time for.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
You in the name of the fall Son in the
Holy Spirit.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Oh, Larry, do it Italian?
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Now, Ceo, you see that, you know the great?
Speaker 6 (16:17):
So I hadn't I literally hadn't gone to confession in
like a year, right, So I'm in. I'm in church there.
I did go to Mass several times. It was Italian masses.
So afterwards I said, I went to concession, right, and
the priest only speaks Italian. And I'm like, this is great.
(16:37):
I can list everything in anything my whole life. Now
this guy doesn't understand a thing. This is great.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
And he was like he managed to say God to understand, Okay,
this is good. That's great. I'm coming back.
Speaker 6 (16:57):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
I hope he toured. Yes, I would love to go
to him, you know, before we get into other topics,
because there's so much going on. As you look back
on your trip to the Vatican, I know, sometimes small
moments are the ones you remember, or sometimes it's the
biggest moment. What do you take away from it? Like,
what was the moment that captured it for you?
Speaker 6 (17:20):
Oh, honestly, it was when excuse me, when I saw
the white smoke I mean, it is so indescribable. I
read I think it was Tom Nordoozy, I forget his name,
one of the writers for the Washington Examiner, and he
he wrote about how it is just a moment in
life you don't forget and totally indescribable, no matter how
(17:41):
you capture it on your iPhone or whatever. And it's
so true because we were just you know, tens of
thousands of people kind of milling, not even really milling
about because it was starting to get crowded, but just
you know, walking, talking, not paying attention, and then all
of a sudden, because not everyone's staring at the chimney
(18:02):
or you know, you're talking or doing whatever, and then
all of a sudden, you just start hearing faint and
it gets louder, like a wave, louder and louder, and
it's just, oh my god, white smoke, white smoke, and
it's just one of those moments you just get caught
up in. And the white smoke just meant, Okay, we're
gonna find out, but we don't know when. But they
(18:24):
but they figured it out at least in that Sisteine chapel.
And then you know, when he came out on the
balcony when it was announced. It was just a real
cool moment that, uh, it is indescribable. I mean, honest
to god, got goosebumps and it was like people all
around are crying and yeh and it just they didn't
know who was coming out, but it was just the moment.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
I love how he said, people all around are crying.
Maybeat bit, you know what, There's so many important things
going on, but I I'm a little bit obsessed with
his James Comey story. He's the former be I director.
He should know better than this.
Speaker 6 (19:03):
Well, because he got away with everything when he was there.
I mean, look what he got away with. He was
like reigning supreme and he's so arrogant, and the media
gave him a pass and put him on, you know,
exalted him. And yeah, no, of course. And just imagine
for a second if it was one of Donald Trump's guy,
or if Donald Trump retweeted a picture, you know, eighty
(19:26):
six forty six, just imagine what would have happened. Of course,
they would have showed up at Mar a Lago and
talked about there's no room in this country political violence
and how dare you we need to set the record straight.
So you know what, I hope they do show up
at his house and give him a little noogie or something.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Yeah, at least put the fear of God at him
for a second.
Speaker 7 (19:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Can we sit back in off for a second about
Donald Trump's trip to the Middle East that's even getting
praised by Democrats.
Speaker 6 (19:55):
Now, well, so, yeah, I mean it's a phenomenal trip,
which I think think you know, look that there's a
lot of a lot of promises and everything, and I
think it's going to be great. I honestly will in
five ten years pay off enormous dividends. I mean this
it could be a total restructuring of the Middle East
(20:15):
in such a good way. But so yesterday and I
never watched the network news, I don't, but yesterday I'm like,
all right, it was six thirty. I started with I
think CBS, and then went on all the same, all
the same. They led with, you know, growing criticism of
Donald Trump accepting a seven forty seven.
Speaker 5 (20:35):
I know, that was it.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
That was it.
Speaker 6 (20:38):
You learn nothing else about any part of that trip
other than that, right, he.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Normalized relations with Syria. That's unbelievable. I don't think people
some I know you do, but I just don't think
a certainly the media doesn't how important that is in
the world, that that's a game changer in the Middle East,
that alone. But then he did it with Lebanon and
he's reached out there were Ron you know what he's
what he's doing. I sat back in all of this
(21:03):
whole thing, and you're right, it is frustrating. But look,
everybody's leaving them. You've seen the ratings. Everybody's leaving them
and going to alternative media and going to Newsmacks.
Speaker 7 (21:15):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 6 (21:16):
And you played the sound of the buffoon Mayor and
Newark screaming and yelling you know what, you want to
trespass and you want to run over ice agents and
you know, Okay, then there's consequences, so pay the consequences. Yeah, absolutely,
but they want none. They want none.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
No, he's running for office. That's that's what this is
all about. And he wasn't doing well. Now he'll do
better because that's the Democratic Party.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
True.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Rob Astorino, host of Rob Astorino Show on WR Today
from four to five and host of The Saturday Agenda,
also Today from one to three on Newsmax. He's also
the former Westchester County Executive. Up next, doctor Gregory Poland
from the Mayo Clinic tells us why women will now
have to go to the doctor a lot less.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Here again is Larry Menty with the WOOR Saturday Morning Show.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Hey, if you want to keep your brain healthy, just
watch what you eat. That's according to world renowned medical
expert doctor Gregory Poland from the Mayo Clinic. Doctor Poland
is always thanks for being here.
Speaker 7 (22:17):
Good to be with you, Larry.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
I know the FDA has just approved an at home
cervical cancer screening test. How important of news is this.
Speaker 7 (22:27):
This is really good news for the women in the
population because they can self collect at home a specimen
which actually is designed to detect HPV human papaloma virus.
It is that virus that causes cervical cancers, vulvar cancers,
(22:49):
vaginal cancers. So they're actually collecting a specimen that can
they then mail in can be tested for HPV and
determine whether they have it or not. Now, this is
important when you consider that eighty percent eight zero eighty
percent of people become HPD infected during their life. Fortunately,
(23:13):
most people resolve it, but there's a portion that don't.
And you consider that, you know, you have about two
hundred and fifty three hundred thousand people with cervical cancer
in the US, and that about twenty five percent or
so of women are not up to date with screening.
What a wonderful thing to be able to do it
(23:33):
in the comfort of your home, not have to have
a doctor appointment or drive anywhere.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Yeah, that's the great part about it. Not having no offense,
but not having to go to the doctor and then
not have that uncomfortable experience as well. Just do it.
How often do you think that people should be doing this?
Speaker 7 (23:50):
Well, the recommendations are for women twenty one to twenty
nine they get it every three years, and thirty to
sixty five they get a PAP smear every three years
and an HPV test every five years. And if you're
low risk, then after the age of sixty five, if
you have been screened a number of times when you're younger,
(24:11):
you probably no longer need to test. Now. The one
downside of the home test is that it doesn't allow
you to determine if anything else is going on. So
typically when we do a pelvic exam and we do
a pap smear and we take a specimen for HPV.
We're also feeling the ovaries and being sure there's no
(24:35):
abnormal masses there. So it's not like this is something
where you'll never have to have a pelvic exam and
see a doctor. This is an adjunct and I think
particularly for younger women, this is going to be a
lot more comfortable and likely they'll be a lot more
compliant than if they had to go into a physician.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Oh, that's great information. It's interesting you send us things
you'd like to talk about, and you have here prevention
of Parkinson's disease and Memorial Day. That's pretty fascinating. Is
what is the head?
Speaker 7 (25:09):
It's a little bit of a teaser. Well, what's becoming
really clear. And actually at HRI, I work with a
colleague does a lot of work in this area. Toxins,
environmental toxins, and ultra processed foods are the things that
really seem to be associated with elevated risks of Parkinson's disease.
(25:31):
And we're sort of choosing Memorial Day to make the
point that brain health begins at the table. So think
of the typical Memorial Day picnic foods, sodas, potato chips,
hot dogs. You have eleven or so servings of that,
and you've increased your risk of Parkinson's disease by double.
(25:53):
I think people don't realize just how bad these ultra
processed foods are for us. And I might say that
we've got in the US alone about a million people
living with Parkinson's disease, about ninety thousand new cases every year,
So you're talking about one out of every three hundred
(26:15):
and twenty eight people or so in the US as Parkinson's.
And these sorts of studies, you know you often hear
of studies, Well, they say that this week and next
week it'll be something different. This is a decades long
study of the Nurses Health Study and the Health Professionals
follow up study. The've had forty three thousand people wow,
(26:38):
followed for decades.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Doctor Gregory Paoland, that's great information. Thank you so much.
World renowned medical expert and leader in vaccines and infectious
diseases at the Mayo Clinic and president of the Atria
Research Institute in New York. Thanks again, doctor You bet
that wraps up Saturday morning for this week. Thank you
so much for listening, and thanks to producer Peter Ierlano
(27:00):
and Natalie Vaka. I'll be back Monday morning from six
to ten for Mente in the morning. Hope you join us.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
This has been a podcast from wor
This is a podcast from WR Now the WR Saturday
Morning Show. Here's Larry Minty.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Welcome to Saturday Morning. On today's show, the Supreme Court,
here's arguments that could affect the entire Trump agenda. John Decker,
White House correspondent and Constitutional attorney, was at the Supreme
Court for the oral arguments. WR and newsma's host Rob
Astorino is back from the Vatican covering the elevation of
(00:30):
a new pope, and he talks about that experience. You
want to keep your brain healthy. It starts at the
dinner table. Doctor Gregory Poland is here to explain Pete
Rose is finally eligible for the Hall of Fame, and
legendary baseball columnist Bill Madden, who knew Charlie Hussel, is
here to talk about his chances. But let's start with
(00:51):
John Decker, who was in the Supreme Court to hear
arguments about the power of district court judges and birthright citizenship.
How do your takeaways?
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Yeah, that's right. I was in the Supreme Court for
all two plus hours of oral arguments yesterday, and the
Supreme Court really appeared to be divided on these two issues.
On the one hand, I think that you heard from
some justices that they're troubled, they're frustrated by the idea
that a single federal district court judge can issue a
(01:22):
nationwide injunction that would apply to everybody in the country,
not just the parties that brought the case in the
first place. And then, of course you saw this play
out before the Supreme Court yesterday. Not one of them
defended the President's executive order trying to do away with
(01:42):
birthright citizenship. In fact, Justice Alito essentially said, let's get
past this particular issue. Let's leave that aside, because I
think even he's uncomfortable with trying to defend an executive
order trying to trump what's enshrined in the fourteenth Amendment
of the country Institution.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
So what do you see happening? I mean, I know
it's reading tea leaves at this point, But when you
say they're split, is it split conservative liberal or is
it really split five to four or four to five?
Speaker 3 (02:14):
You know, the split is interesting because over the past
decade or so, you've I've heard a Republican appointed justices,
Democratic appointed justices, liberals conservatives both express frustration as it
relates to a single federal district court judge, a trial
court judge in a particular district issuing these nationwide injunctions. So,
(02:39):
you know, I think that for Chief Justice John Roberts,
he's got a difficult task ahead of him, and that
is essentially coming down with some sort of answer to
that particular problem that both liberal and conservative justices acknowledge
exists at the same time, leaving the crux of the
(03:02):
main issue at hand untouched, and that is the issue
of birthright citizenship. So he's got to navigate that. He's
got some time to do it. Yesterday marked essentially mid May.
He's gotten until the end of next month to come
out with an opinion the Supreme Court does concerning this
particular case. But to me, it's not, you know, black
(03:25):
and white this particular issue in terms of how you
do it, and that's where these bright minds on the
Supreme Court will need to figure that out. I expect
that as it relates to this case, Larry, there will
be a number of concurring opinions, because not every justice
will agree with the majority opinion that actually ultimately comes forward.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
It's interesting that, you know, some of the so called
liberal judges like Alena Kagan has been out publicly saying
that this is unsustainable. We can't have these district court
judges stopping executive power or across the entire country, or
even congressional power across the entire country. That that shouldn't
be happening. And so were there enough of the liberal
(04:10):
judges that were arguing and it seemed to be for
the idea of limiting limiting the power of a district
court judge.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Yeah, And you know, there was an idea that was
proposed by the Solicitor General. So he is the person
arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration. His
name is John Sower, and he suggested, you know, look,
the way to address this particular issue is through class
action status for some of the matters that come before
(04:42):
these district court judges. So the question was asked, Larry,
what happens? And this question was posed to both the
Solicitor General for the United States that's the person arguing
on behalf of the Trump administration, and the Solicitor General
for the state of New Jersey. And the question was
what happened if you win this case and what happens
(05:02):
if you lose this case? If the Solicitor General for
the state of New Jersey loses this case, I would
imagine not only the Solicitor General for New Jersey, but
also those that brought the cases in two other jurisdictions
would see class action status for the actions that they've
initially brought against the federal government concerning birthright citizenship. That
(05:25):
may satisfy all of the concerns expressed by the various
justices yesterday during oral arguments, But I think it's one
of those things where I'm really interested to see what
this ultimate majority opinion looks like.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
It's fascinating. There's so many cases involving Donald Trump's actions
going to the Supreme Court, but this one. And it's
smart that they went early with this one because this
one might be the foundation for ruling on many more
to come, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
You're absolutely right about that, because it's not just this
particular matter. It's other matters, other policy pronouncements, executive orders
taken by President Trump that have been challenged in the
federal courts, and we've seen a significant number of district
court judges weighing in and putting them on hold through injunctions.
(06:21):
And that is the power that exists right now. It
was interesting also to me to hear what Justice Clarence
Thomas said, and he pointed out that these nationwide injunctions
really did not start until the early nineteen sixties, and
he made a remark saying the country survived before that
period of time. So you know where he stands on
(06:41):
this particular issue.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I want you to put your other hat on for
one second, because Donald Trump is coming back after what
everybody seems to believe is extremely successful. I believe it
a extremely successful trip to the Middle East where he
may have changed the Middle East with some relationships with Syria, Lebanon,
possibly Iran, and got investments. Democrats are even praising it.
(07:04):
Him coming back, he's going to have a pretty big head,
which he already had in the first place. But do
you see it as an successful trip well?
Speaker 3 (07:12):
On the foreign policy front, absolutely. You know, the President
lifted sanctions on Syria that was unexpected, met with Syria's
new president that was unexpected, made a new offer as
far as an Iran nuclear deal and that's now being
studied by the government of Iran, that too is unexpected.
I think the one thing that did not happen on
(07:33):
this trip and it would not have happened. I don't
think anyway was the President calling an audible traveling to Turkey,
meeting with Zelensky and possibly Putin, But as we know,
Putin declined to travel to Turkey for peace talks. So
that's the one thing that I think really frustrates the president.
For as much success that he achieved on this trip,
(07:56):
including the economic investments in the United States, that was
one element that eluded him. But that was I think
a real reach to think that the President would travel
to Turkey, or that even Putin would travel to Turkey,
and of course we know he is not. And I
think that that's indicative, Larry, of the fact that we've
(08:18):
spoken about this before. Vladimir Putin is the impediment to
peace in terms of ending that war.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
WR White House and Washington correspondent and Constitutional attorney John Decker.
Next on Saturday Morning, Pete Rose is eligible for the
Hall of Fame, and someone who covered Pete for his
entire career, Daily News columnist Bill Madden, is here to
talk about it.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Back now to the WR Saturday Morning Show with Larry
MINTI welcome back.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Pete Rose died last year at the age of eighty
three and until the end he was asking the commissioner
to lift the lifetime ban on him so he could
be eligible to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
That happened this week for Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson,
and fifteen other deceased players. Legendary sports columnist Bill Madden
(09:11):
knew and liked Pete Rose. He is a best selling
author and the twenty ten recipient of Baseball Hall of
Fame's JG. Taylor Spink Award. He's got a new book out,
Yankees Typewriters, Scandals and Cooperstown, a baseball memoir, just out
last month. How appropriate for today, Bill, I'd love to
(09:34):
have you back to talk about the book. I'd love
to read the book, so it sounds great, But today
let's just talk about Pete Rose, if that's okay. And
what was your reaction when you heard, Bill?
Speaker 4 (09:47):
I wasn't surprised, because once Manford revealed that he'd have
this meeting with Pete Rose's relatives and he was once
again considering this whole I assumed that probably he would
rule and uh to reinstate him, basically for the reasons
(10:08):
that he gave you know, the guy is dead, and
a lifetime ban is a lifetime ban, and if you're dead,
you're no longer have a lifetime So I got that
was his reasoning me personally, I don't know how I've
been up back and forth on Pete Rose for thirty years.
I always liked the guy. He was a writer's delight.
(10:29):
He'd loved it. You know, you could go to his
locker and talk baseball, you know, before games and after games,
and he would go on and on, and he loved
the writers. I think I think it's important to understand
that when Bark to Yamati the commissioner first ruled that
he was going to go on the permanent ineligible list,
Giamatti never said anything about the Hall of Fame.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
He left that open.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
All he said was that Pete you need to reconfigure
your life, and if you do, then you know this
is up for appeal. Basically, what happened was in nineteen
ninety two, when nineteen ninety one, when Rose had been
out of the game for five years, he was now
(11:14):
eligible for the Hall of Fame, And it was the
Hall of Fame that decided that anybody on the Permanent
Ineligible list was ineligible for the Hall of Fame, effectively
taking the matter of Rose away from the Baseball Writers Association.
We were not happy about that because it was clearly
the Hall of Fame's opinion or the Board of Director's
(11:37):
opinion that they were worried we would vote him in,
and we never got a chance to decide one way
or the other way. It's been all these years.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
On that point. Is it your feeling that the Baseball
Writers would have voted him in on the first ballot.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
I don't think he would have got in on the
first ballot. I think he would have eventually gotten in
if he was eligible, because we having this debate every year,
and usually when these things happen and you debate about
someone every year, eventually the people who want him in
went over the people that don't want him in. So
I think, yeah, we would have voted him in. But
(12:14):
the problem with Pete was he always did something that
made you stop and think.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
You know.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
My feeling about Pete Rose and about the whole thing
with gambling was no question he broke Baseball's cardinal rule
and he deserved to pay a price for that. But
the difference between Pete Rose and the steroids guys was
night and day. In my opinion, the steroids guys cheated
the game, and what they did was, in my opinion, unforgivable.
(12:43):
In Pete's case, he may have broken baseball's cardinal rule,
but he never cheated the game. He always played all out,
and for me, that's why I probably would have voted
for him.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
It's interesting you say that about the steroid guys because
when I was listening to this last interview with Pete R,
he was talking about them, and he said, look, Barry
Bonds hit seven hundred and fifteen home runs before before
he was taking steroids, and he deserves to be in
for just that reason alone. But you don't think the
steroid people will ever get in.
Speaker 4 (13:15):
Well, it doesn't look like they're going to get in.
And I never bought that argument, because that was like
saying Shule's Joe was a Hall of Fame player until
he got involved in the nineteen nineteen World Series.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Right, It's true.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
It's the same thing. I mean, you know, just because
Barry Bonds was a great player once he started doing steroids,
I mean that's a deal breaker. I don't care how
great a player he was before there's no question he
would never have hit that many home runs if he
hadn't done steroids.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
So it's interesting, and we only have about a minute left.
But it's interesting that you say he won't get in
on the first ballot. So when he comes up in
twenty twenty seven, does some of the voters feel like
because obviously he's the all time hit leader just on
talent alone, he should be in on the first ballot,
but they have to make a statement that he did
do something wrong and then vote for him later to
(14:06):
get in.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
No, I didn't mean this. I meant for the baseball writers.
If we had been given a chance to vote on him,
I don't think he would have made it in on
the first ballot.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
With us, I got it.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
In this case, I think he'll probably get in and
I think Shuless Joe will probably get in it as well.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Wow, they both deserve thought. I thought they'd want to
send a message though.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
No, Well, I don't know. It's a strange committee. It's formed,
it's got former players, a lot of them played against
even with Pete are on that committee. There's owners on
that committee, there's writers on that committee. It's a I
think it's eighteen people on the committee.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Bill, it's fascinating that you that that everything you've said
to is fascinating. We'd love to have you back to
talk about your new book, Yankees Typewriters, Scandals and Cooperstown,
a Baseball Memoir, just out last month. Can't wait to
have you back. Bill. Thank you, Okay, thank you. Bill Madden,
national baseball columnists for the New York Daily News and
author of the new book Yankees Typewriters, Scandals and Cooperstown,
(15:09):
a Baseball Memoir coming up. Eating better can keep your
brain healthy and prevent things like Parkinson's disease. That's according
to doctor Gregory Poland from the Mayo Clinic. He's coming
up next on Saturday Morning WR and Newsmax's host and
former Westchester County executive Rob Astorino is just back from
(15:31):
the Vatican. We'll talk about the moment that made him
shed a tear.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Here's Larry Minting with more of the wr Saturday Morning Show.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Wr and Newsmax's host. Rob Astorino was at the Vatican
for the death of Pope Francis and the elevation of
Pope Leo the fourteenth, and he was moved by one
particular moment. Good morning, Rob, busy time for.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
You in the name of the fall Son in the
Holy Spirit.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Oh, Larry, do it Italian?
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Now, Ceo, you see that, you know the great?
Speaker 6 (16:17):
So I hadn't I literally hadn't gone to confession in
like a year, right, So I'm in. I'm in church there.
I did go to Mass several times. It was Italian masses.
So afterwards I said, I went to concession, right, and
the priest only speaks Italian. And I'm like, this is great.
(16:37):
I can list everything in anything my whole life. Now
this guy doesn't understand a thing. This is great.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
And he was like he managed to say God to understand, Okay,
this is good. That's great. I'm coming back.
Speaker 6 (16:57):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
I hope he toured. Yes, I would love to go
to him, you know, before we get into other topics,
because there's so much going on. As you look back
on your trip to the Vatican, I know, sometimes small
moments are the ones you remember, or sometimes it's the
biggest moment. What do you take away from it? Like,
what was the moment that captured it for you?
Speaker 6 (17:20):
Oh, honestly, it was when excuse me, when I saw
the white smoke I mean, it is so indescribable. I
read I think it was Tom Nordoozy, I forget his name,
one of the writers for the Washington Examiner, and he
he wrote about how it is just a moment in
life you don't forget and totally indescribable, no matter how
(17:41):
you capture it on your iPhone or whatever. And it's
so true because we were just you know, tens of
thousands of people kind of milling, not even really milling
about because it was starting to get crowded, but just
you know, walking, talking, not paying attention, and then all
of a sudden, because not everyone's staring at the chimney
(18:02):
or you know, you're talking or doing whatever, and then
all of a sudden, you just start hearing faint and
it gets louder, like a wave, louder and louder, and
it's just, oh my god, white smoke, white smoke, and
it's just one of those moments you just get caught
up in. And the white smoke just meant, Okay, we're
gonna find out, but we don't know when. But they
(18:24):
but they figured it out at least in that Sisteine chapel.
And then you know, when he came out on the
balcony when it was announced. It was just a real
cool moment that, uh, it is indescribable. I mean, honest
to god, got goosebumps and it was like people all
around are crying and yeh and it just they didn't
know who was coming out, but it was just the moment.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
I love how he said, people all around are crying.
Maybeat bit, you know what, There's so many important things
going on, but I I'm a little bit obsessed with
his James Comey story. He's the former be I director.
He should know better than this.
Speaker 6 (19:03):
Well, because he got away with everything when he was there.
I mean, look what he got away with. He was
like reigning supreme and he's so arrogant, and the media
gave him a pass and put him on, you know,
exalted him. And yeah, no, of course. And just imagine
for a second if it was one of Donald Trump's guy,
or if Donald Trump retweeted a picture, you know, eighty
(19:26):
six forty six, just imagine what would have happened. Of course,
they would have showed up at Mar a Lago and
talked about there's no room in this country political violence
and how dare you we need to set the record straight.
So you know what, I hope they do show up
at his house and give him a little noogie or something.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Yeah, at least put the fear of God at him
for a second.
Speaker 7 (19:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Can we sit back in off for a second about
Donald Trump's trip to the Middle East that's even getting
praised by Democrats.
Speaker 6 (19:55):
Now, well, so, yeah, I mean it's a phenomenal trip,
which I think think you know, look that there's a
lot of a lot of promises and everything, and I
think it's going to be great. I honestly will in
five ten years pay off enormous dividends. I mean this
it could be a total restructuring of the Middle East
(20:15):
in such a good way. But so yesterday and I
never watched the network news, I don't, but yesterday I'm like,
all right, it was six thirty. I started with I
think CBS, and then went on all the same, all
the same. They led with, you know, growing criticism of
Donald Trump accepting a seven forty seven.
Speaker 5 (20:35):
I know, that was it.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
That was it.
Speaker 6 (20:38):
You learn nothing else about any part of that trip
other than that, right, he.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Normalized relations with Syria. That's unbelievable. I don't think people
some I know you do, but I just don't think
a certainly the media doesn't how important that is in
the world, that that's a game changer in the Middle East,
that alone. But then he did it with Lebanon and
he's reached out there were Ron you know what he's
what he's doing. I sat back in all of this
(21:03):
whole thing, and you're right, it is frustrating. But look,
everybody's leaving them. You've seen the ratings. Everybody's leaving them
and going to alternative media and going to Newsmacks.
Speaker 7 (21:15):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 6 (21:16):
And you played the sound of the buffoon Mayor and
Newark screaming and yelling you know what, you want to
trespass and you want to run over ice agents and
you know, Okay, then there's consequences, so pay the consequences. Yeah, absolutely,
but they want none. They want none.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
No, he's running for office. That's that's what this is
all about. And he wasn't doing well. Now he'll do
better because that's the Democratic Party.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
True.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Rob Astorino, host of Rob Astorino Show on WR Today
from four to five and host of The Saturday Agenda,
also Today from one to three on Newsmax. He's also
the former Westchester County Executive. Up next, doctor Gregory Poland
from the Mayo Clinic tells us why women will now
have to go to the doctor a lot less.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Here again is Larry Menty with the WOOR Saturday Morning Show.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Hey, if you want to keep your brain healthy, just
watch what you eat. That's according to world renowned medical
expert doctor Gregory Poland from the Mayo Clinic. Doctor Poland
is always thanks for being here.
Speaker 7 (22:17):
Good to be with you, Larry.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
I know the FDA has just approved an at home
cervical cancer screening test. How important of news is this.
Speaker 7 (22:27):
This is really good news for the women in the
population because they can self collect at home a specimen
which actually is designed to detect HPV human papaloma virus.
It is that virus that causes cervical cancers, vulvar cancers,
(22:49):
vaginal cancers. So they're actually collecting a specimen that can
they then mail in can be tested for HPV and
determine whether they have it or not. Now, this is
important when you consider that eighty percent eight zero eighty
percent of people become HPD infected during their life. Fortunately,
(23:13):
most people resolve it, but there's a portion that don't.
And you consider that, you know, you have about two
hundred and fifty three hundred thousand people with cervical cancer
in the US, and that about twenty five percent or
so of women are not up to date with screening.
What a wonderful thing to be able to do it
(23:33):
in the comfort of your home, not have to have
a doctor appointment or drive anywhere.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Yeah, that's the great part about it. Not having no offense,
but not having to go to the doctor and then
not have that uncomfortable experience as well. Just do it.
How often do you think that people should be doing this?
Speaker 7 (23:50):
Well, the recommendations are for women twenty one to twenty
nine they get it every three years, and thirty to
sixty five they get a PAP smear every three years
and an HPV test every five years. And if you're
low risk, then after the age of sixty five, if
you have been screened a number of times when you're younger,
(24:11):
you probably no longer need to test. Now. The one
downside of the home test is that it doesn't allow
you to determine if anything else is going on. So
typically when we do a pelvic exam and we do
a pap smear and we take a specimen for HPV.
We're also feeling the ovaries and being sure there's no
(24:35):
abnormal masses there. So it's not like this is something
where you'll never have to have a pelvic exam and
see a doctor. This is an adjunct and I think
particularly for younger women, this is going to be a
lot more comfortable and likely they'll be a lot more
compliant than if they had to go into a physician.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Oh, that's great information. It's interesting you send us things
you'd like to talk about, and you have here prevention
of Parkinson's disease and Memorial Day. That's pretty fascinating. Is
what is the head?
Speaker 7 (25:09):
It's a little bit of a teaser. Well, what's becoming
really clear. And actually at HRI, I work with a
colleague does a lot of work in this area. Toxins,
environmental toxins, and ultra processed foods are the things that
really seem to be associated with elevated risks of Parkinson's disease.
(25:31):
And we're sort of choosing Memorial Day to make the
point that brain health begins at the table. So think
of the typical Memorial Day picnic foods, sodas, potato chips,
hot dogs. You have eleven or so servings of that,
and you've increased your risk of Parkinson's disease by double.
(25:53):
I think people don't realize just how bad these ultra
processed foods are for us. And I might say that
we've got in the US alone about a million people
living with Parkinson's disease, about ninety thousand new cases every year,
So you're talking about one out of every three hundred
(26:15):
and twenty eight people or so in the US as Parkinson's.
And these sorts of studies, you know you often hear
of studies, Well, they say that this week and next
week it'll be something different. This is a decades long
study of the Nurses Health Study and the Health Professionals
follow up study. The've had forty three thousand people wow,
(26:38):
followed for decades.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Doctor Gregory Paoland, that's great information. Thank you so much.
World renowned medical expert and leader in vaccines and infectious
diseases at the Mayo Clinic and president of the Atria
Research Institute in New York. Thanks again, doctor You bet
that wraps up Saturday morning for this week. Thank you
so much for listening, and thanks to producer Peter Ierlano
(27:00):
and Natalie Vaka. I'll be back Monday morning from six
to ten for Mente in the morning. Hope you join us.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
This has been a podcast from wor
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!